Parallels invasiveness VS Fusion inferior performance

From what I gathered, during their histories, Parallels has performed better than Fusion, yet there there's still quite a debate over which is better: fusion users aren't a niche.
If I'm correct, benchmarks reveled that Parallels just performs better, then why do people still use Fusion?

I switched to Fusion years ago, when I realized that Parallels had installed artificial connections within my network preferences pane, and hated it.
I believe there are still some features for which Fusion in unique and some users might prefer it over parallels for them.

Does unique features justify the popularity of Fusion? Or it just isn't true that on average during years of development parallels has always performed better than fusion?

I gathered that Parallels 7 still performs better than Fusion, am I right?
Is parallels still as system-invasive as it was before?
I do think that installing artificial connections is invasive, I liked the fact that Fusion installation was drag-and-drop and always distrust programs that can be installed only through installers (I'm not talking about Operative Systems of course).

From what I gathered, during their histories, Parallels has performed better than Fusion, yet there there's still quite a debate over which is better: fusion users aren't a niche.
If I'm correct, benchmarks reveled that Parallels just performs better, then why do people still use Fusion?

I switched to Fusion years ago, when I realized that Parallels had installed artificial connections within my network preferences pane, and hated it.
I believe there are still some features for which Fusion in unique and some users might prefer it over parallels for them.

Does unique features justify the popularity of Fusion? Or it just isn't true that on average during years of development parallels has always performed better than fusion?

I gathered that Parallels 7 still performs better than Fusion, am I right?
Is parallels still as system-invasive as it was before?
I do think that installing artificial connections is invasive, I liked the fact that Fusion installation was drag-and-drop and always distrust programs that can be installed only through installers (I'm not talking about Operative Systems of course).

What's you guys' opinion on this?

Click to expand...

Performance or stability.

Pick one.

I'm willing to trade a slower VM for something more stable, then again if I really want to play games I can simply run Bootcamp on its own, which meant all the performance enhancements offered by Parallels were rendered irrelevant.

I find both Parallels and VMware Fusion to be about the same speed on average use. In 3D performance, Parallels wins. In stability, Fusion wins. In easy to use, Fusion also wins. I have licenses for both, but personally I use VMware Fusion while my dad uses Parallels.

I ran Fusion for a month, but when the reminders turned up to buy it the website wouldn't let me (didn't go to a cart, told me to ring or go to a shop). I tried Parallels but they never sent me an email with the trial code.

So now I've installed VirtualBox, which works beautifully. In many respects it works better than VMWare, and is very inconspicuous. Problem solved and money saved! I can certainly recommend trying it...

So now I've installed VirtualBox, which works beautifully. In many respects it works better than VMWare, and is very inconspicuous. Problem solved and money saved! I can certainly recommend trying it...

Click to expand...

Interesting...can VirtualBox "point towards" a BootCamp installation in the same way that Fusion and Parallels can...although I tried to find this in the 300+ manual I had no luck...

Depends on what you're using the VM software for, right? If money is not a concern, go with Parallels as it is supposedly the superior product. If not, VMware Fusion is excellent software as well.

Personally, I prefer VMware. Not only because my university offers it free for us CS students, but it's actually really good. It was really easy for me to setup and use, and also getting my Boot Camp partition to run as a VM was simple as well. I've seen some screenshots of Parallels, and I gotta say, the interface is much prettier than VMware, but oh well. Free > Not free.

Interesting...can VirtualBox "point towards" a BootCamp installation in the same way that Fusion and Parallels can...although I tried to find this in the 300+ manual I had no luck...

Thanks,

Joel

Click to expand...

It appears that it can, although it's not easy to set up. If you search for this (bootcamp and virtualbox) there are a number of pages that allegedly show you how to make it happen. But I'm not brave enough to try them at the moment.

To be honest, I found that after playing with VMWare for a month, it was fun to use bootcamp within OSX, but I wasn't seriously doing anything once Windows was set up. I use XP within a virtual window for work (within Virtualbox itself). I have Windows 7 in Bootcamp, but that's only for running games and some video/photographic work. The only reason I'm running those under Windows instead of OSX is to increase their performance, and so they have to be running under Bootcamp anyway. It's of very little use to me to have those applications running virtually, as the only reason they're there is for them to run quickly. For this reason (and the fact that it only takes 15-20 seconds to reboot into Windows) I don't have much of a need to run Bootcamp virtually. I thought I would, but it turns out otherwise.

Virtualbox has been pretty good for what I needed: Minitab and VCarve. It has great support, is updated often and is free. The only issues I had with it was when I'd try to run some more graphics intensive and data crunching apps like ArcGIS. Then again, I'm still on a C2D MBP.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.